MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951566019 · doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.03.028

Prediction of Stroke Risk by Detection of Hemorrhage in Carotid Plaques

2019· review· en· W2951566019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMedtronic JapanOtsuka PharmaceuticalTechnische Universität MünchenAstellas PharmaHartstichtingSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAstraZenecaCSL BehringStroke AssociationSanofiSchweizerische HerzstiftungTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyPfizer
KeywordsMedicineStenosisAsymptomaticStroke (engine)Hazard ratioInternal medicineCardiologyConfidence intervalRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the risk of stroke between patients with carotid artery disease with and without the presence of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) on magnetic resonance imaging. BACKGROUND: IPH in carotid stenosis increases the risk of cerebrovascular events. Uncertainty remains whether risk of stroke alone is increased and whether stroke is predicted independently of known risk factors. METHODS: Data were pooled from 7 cohort studies including 560 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and 136 patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Hazards of ipsilateral ischemic stroke (primary outcome) were compared between patients with and without IPH, adjusted for clinical risk factors. RESULTS: IPH was present in 51.6% of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis and 29.4% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. During 1,121 observed person-years, 66 ipsilateral strokes occurred. Presence of IPH at baseline increased the risk of ipsilateral stroke both in symptomatic (hazard ratio [HR]: 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 22.5) and asymptomatic (HR: 7.9; 95% CI: 1.3 to 47.6) patients. Among patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, annualized event rates of ipsilateral stroke in those with IPH versus those without IPH were 9.0% versus 0.7% (<50% stenosis), 18.1% versus 2.1% (50% to 69% stenosis), and 29.3% versus 1.5% (70% to 99% stenosis). Annualized event rates among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis were 5.4% in those with IPH versus 0.8% in those without IPH. Multivariate analysis identified IPH (HR: 11.0; 95% CI: 4.8 to 25.1) and severe degree of stenosis (HR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.4 to 7.8) as independent predictors of ipsilateral stroke. CONCLUSIONS: IPH is common in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis and is a stronger predictor of stroke than any known clinical risk factors. Magnetic resonance imaging might help identify patients with carotid disease who would benefit from revascularization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it